Destructive Leadership Behaviors Research Articles

The Causes and Consequences of Bad Leadership

This topical issue of the Zeitschrift f r Psychologie focuses on negative forms of leadership, that is, destructive leadership in its different forms, rather than re-emphasizing the still more common focus on positive leadership (Schilling, 2009). Here, the quest is not to find the holy grail of what makes a leader successful and how this contributes to organizational success but rather the opposite: to prevent the damage bad leadership and destructive leaders can do to followers and organizations. In recent years, a quickly growing stream of research concerning the dark side of leadership has emerged (e.g., Bligh, Kohles, Pearce, Justin, & Stovall, 2007; Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007; Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013; Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2000, 2007), which underpins the importance of the topic. While different forms of destructive leadership (e.g., abusive supervision, petty tyranny, negative leadership, aversive leadership) can be distinguished, they all have been shown to negatively impact followers and organizations (e.g., Schyns & Schilling, 2013). However, so far, we know relatively little about the antecedents of destructive leadership or how its effect compares to constructive leadership. Hence, the aim of this issue is to deepen our understanding of the phenomenon by paying special attention to its antecedents and the comparison of constructive and destructive forms of leadership. In doing so, the papers compiled here add to the discussion about how to prevent destructive leadership. This topical issue starts off with a review paper by Pundt (2014) who outlines the theory of different ways in which charismatic leadership attempts can lead to abusive leadership perception and/or abusive leadership behavior. The author differentiates between failed charismatic attempts from the leader’s side (overdramatized charisma, overambitious charisma) and failed attempts due to followers’ reactions (refused charisma, disappointed charisma, and abandoned charisma). He argues that overdramatized charisma and overambitious charisma can lead to abusive leadership perceptions, while overambitious charisma, refused charisma, disappointed charisma, and abandoned charisma can lead to abusive leadership behaviors. The paper acknowledges the process character of leadership by incorporating followers’ reactions to leadership behavior and appreciating that this reaction triggers another reaction in the leader, potentially altering leadership perceptions or behaviors. Similarly, May, Wesche, Heinitz, and Kerschreiter (2014) take an integrative view of negative leadership by looking at the interaction process between leaders and followers in coping with negative leadership. They argue that destructive leader behavior as perceived by followers leads to different types of follower coping, namely approachoriented coping (problem-focused or emotion-focused) and avoidance-oriented coping (problem-focused or emotion-focused). Depending on how these coping strategies are perceived by the leader, their destructive leadership behavior is either enforced (due to perceptions of the follower coping behavior as either aggressive/retaliatory or submissive) or potentially altered into a more constructive leadership approach (due to perceptions of the follower coping behavior as constructive). Keller Hansbrough and Jones (2014) focus on the leaders’ part in abusive supervision by considering leader narcissism as an antecedent of abusive leadership. They develop a model that explains how narcissistic leaders’ cognitive processes contribute to abusive supervision, insofar as narcissistic leaders’ cognitive processes lead them to justify their abusive behavior. Specifically, the authors argue that narcissistic leaders’ implicit leadership theories comprise elements of tyranny, that is, for them, tyrannical leadership characterizes typical leaders, including themselves (thus, their abusive behavior is normal for leaders). In addition, Keller Hansbrough and Jones argue that narcissistic

Coping With Destructive Leadership

The emerging literature on destructive leadership has been mostly leader centric, often reducing followers to passive subordinates. In line with recent follower-focused approaches to leadership, this theoretical contribution aims at shedding light on the interaction process between leaders and followers and on the active part followers can play in triggering as well as curbing destructive leader behavior. Specifically, we analyze in what ways followers can cope with destructive leadership and how the confrontativeness of the chosen coping strategy in turn affects leaders’ perceptions and resultant behaviors. The proposed interaction model – where subordinate coping is both consequence and antecedent of destructive leadership – offers testable propositions for future research and opens up new avenues for understanding and handling destructive leadership.

Antecedents of Destructive Leadership Behaviors in Chinese Organizational Context: A Longitudinal Research

Antecedents of Destructive Leadership Behaviors in Chinese Organizational Context: A Longitudinal Research

Research on the Destructive Leadership in Virtual Enterprises

With the fast development of virtual manufacturing (VM), virtual enterprise (VE) is believed the enterprise of the future. The leadership effectiveness is important in VEs. This research focused on the dark side of leadership in VEs by examining how VE supervisors destructive leadership influences the performance of subordinates. As predicted, the negative relationship between VE supervisors destructive leadership behavior and subordinates performance was stronger among subordinates whose perception of interactive justice was lower. The studys implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Destructive Behaviours and Leadership: The Source of the Shift from a Functional to Dysfunctional Workplace?

Destructive leadership behaviour often results in damage to the organisations that the individual is entrusted to lead. Although accurately pinpointing the type of destructive behaviour is difficult, this article seeks to offer suggestions as to why leaders spiral into such unattractive behaviour. After reviewing the literature, this paper highlights four drivers for destructive ways that people act based on detailed qualitative scenarios that involve how those who experienced such behaviour reacted and felt. The study reveals a noticeable human experience from which nobody can escape, and offers understanding of the study participants’ experiences. Out of respect to the participants, the authors keep their identity anonomous. We drew our subjects from a cross-section of organisations that function internationally within one area of the manufacturing industry. The article presents a model comprising two dimensions: 1) the leader’s attitude to the organisation he or she leads and 2) adequacy of his or her leadership capabilities. The models offer us understanding of the drivers of the destructive actions that the leader exhibits. Understanding allows us to provide managers with tactical methods to protect them against destructive behaviour and help them lessen the worst aspects of destructive behaviour in both their colleagues and themselves.

The Impact of Prevalent Destructive Leadership Behaviour on Subordinate Employees in a Firm

This paper examines the impact of destructive leadership behaviours experienced by subordinate employees. Structured questionnaires based on the petty Tyranny in organizations scale to explore the scope and nature of destructive leadership were used. The study further explores the relationship among leadership experiences, various measures of subordinates’ satisfaction and turnover level. The results showed that despite the central role of leadership holds for many firms in Hanoi, Vietnam, subordinate employees reported experiencing toxic destructive leadership. There was a significant negative relationship among destructive leadership, all measures of satisfaction and turnover level. Surprisingly, there was not a significant negative impact on turnover level (inclination to remain in the employment) among the subordinate population.

How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes

While the focus on constructive leadership still dominates leadership research, an increasing number of studies investigate different forms of destructive leadership. This meta-analysis integrates different conceptualizations of destructive leadership and analyzes the relationship between destructive leadership and outcome variables. The search for articles yielded more than 200 studies of which 57 could be included in the meta-analysis. Results indicate the expected negative correlations with positive followers' outcomes and behaviors (e.g., attitudes towards the leader, well-being, and individual performance) and positive correlations with negative outcomes (e.g., turnover intention, resistance towards the leader, counterproductive work behavior). As expected, the highest correlation arises between destructive leadership and attitudes towards the leader. Surprisingly, the next highest correlation was found between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behavior. After discussing the results, an agenda for future research is proposed. Given the negative impact of destructive leadership, more knowledge is especially necessary regarding what triggers destructive leadership.

Destrudo‐L

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop a short and easy to use yet psychometrically sound instrument designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context.Design/methodology/approachFirst, examples of destructive leadership behaviours in a military context were collected using a qualitative approach. Second, these examples were operationalised and pilot tested, which resulted in a 20‐item questionnaire called Destrudo‐L. Third, data were collected from three Swedish military groups (n=428). Dimensionality of the instrument was analysed using structural equation modelling. Conventional psychometric assessments of reliability and validity were performed.FindingsA nested hierarchical model with a general factor and the following specific factors emerged: arrogant, unfair; threats, punishments, overdemands; ego‐oriented, false; passive, cowardly; and uncertain, unclear, messy. Meaningful subgroup differences and relationships with a criterion variable (lack of motivation/propensity to leave) were found. More use of active forms was reported by subordinates of younger military commanders and more use of passive forms was marked by subordinates of senior military managers.Practical implicationsThe instrument is easy to administer and interpret (norm values are provided) and can be used in leader evaluation, as well as leader development, contexts.Originality/valueThe main contribution is methodological – the development of a new scale. Additional findings are a strong positive correlation between active and passive forms of destructive leadership behaviours in a military context, as well as significant differences between groups with different ranks.

Bad to the Bone

Although destructive leader behavior is an increasingly popular area of study, little is known about its content or dimensionality at a broad level. In this study, an inventory of destructive behaviors was developed through inductive and deductive methods. Across multiple studies, three behavioral dimensions emerged and were used to create a measure of the construct. Results provide support for the instrument’s construct and criterion validity and its predictive validity over abusive supervision. The study highlights the progress and limitations of prior research, suggests directions for future studies, and provides a practically useful measure of destructive leader behavior in organizations.

The Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour

This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadership behaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimation methods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC) analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5% (OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly. Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailing over more active ones. The results showed that laissez‐faire leadership behaviour was the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyal leadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the least prevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders display constructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not either constructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspective on what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.

The Impact of Destructive Leadership on Senior Military Officers and Civilian Employees

This article examines negative or destructive leadership behaviors experienced by high-potential senior military officers and civilian employees. The study used a questionnaire based on the Petty Tyranny in Organizations Scale to explore the scope and nature of destructive leadership as reported by U.S. members of the class of 2008 at a military senior service college. It also explored the relationship between leadership experiences and various measures of satisfaction and inclination to remain in service. The authors observe that despite the central role that the concept of leadership holds in the military, even senior personnel reported experiencing toxic leadership. There was a significant negative relationship between destructive leadership and all measures of satisfaction. Surprisingly, there was not a significant negative impact on inclination to remain in service among this career-oriented and dedicated population.

Responding Destructively in Leadership Situations: The Role of Personal Values and Problem Construction

This study explored the influence of personal values on destructive leader behavior. Student participants completed a managerial assessment center that presented them with ambiguous leadership decisions and problems. Destructive behavior was defined as harming organizational members or striving for short-term gains over long-term organizational goals. Results revealed that individuals with self-enhancement values were more destructive than individuals with self-transcendence values were, with the core values of power (self-enhancement) and universalism (self-transcendence) being most influential. Results also showed that individuals defined and structured leadership problems in a manner that reflected their value systems, which in turn affected the problem solutions they generated.

Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model

This paper proposes a definition and a descriptive model of destructive leadership behaviour. Destructive leadership behaviour is defined as the systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates. Three categories of such destructive leadership are identified in the proposed model: tyrannical, derailed, and supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour. The model may provide a useful link between the field of leadership and research on bullying, counterproductive behaviour, and aggression at work. The model contributes to a more nuanced concept of destructive leadership showing how destructive leadership behaviours also may have constructive elements.

The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior.

The aim of the study is to test the assumption that laissez-faire leadership behavior is not a type of zero-leadership, but a type of destructive leadership behavior that shows systematic relationships with workplace stressors, bullying at work, and psychological distress. A survey of 2,273 Norwegian employees was conducted and analyzed. Laissez-faire leadership was positively correlated with role conflict, role ambiguity, and conflicts with coworkers. Path modeling showed that these stressors mediated the effects of laissez-faire leadership on bullying at work and that the effects of laissez-faire leadership on distress were mediated through the workplace stressors, especially through exposure to bullying. The results support the assumption that laissez-faire leadership behavior is a destructive leadership behavior.

Ledelse og personkonflikter

Nielsen, M.B., Matthiesen, S.B. & Einarsen, S. (2005). Leadership and interpersonal conflicts: Symptoms of posttraumatic stress among targets of bullying from supervisors. Nordisk Psykologi, 57, 391–415. The present study had two main objectives: First, to identify characteristic management behaviours of leaders who expose their subordinates to negative acts in the form of bullying; and, secondly, to explore possible relationships between perceived behaviours of destructive leadership and symptoms of posttraumatic stress among targets of bullying. The study was based on a survey with 221 respondents, of whom 199 (90%) had been the target of bullying from one or more of their superiors. The inventory ‘Constructive and Destructive Leadership Behaviour’ (Einarsen, Skogstad, Loseth, & Aasland, 2002) was utilized to identify leadership behaviour, while the ‘Impact of Event Scale-Revised’ (Weiss & Marmar, 1997) measured symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Actions associated with tyrannical- and laissez-faire lead...

Social Behavior and the Administrative Process

Perhaps the most vigorous movement in administration in recent years has been directed toward the development of a comprehensive theory capable of generating both hypotheses for guiding research and principles for guiding practice. Despite many specific advances in special areas, such as hospital administration, public administration, business administraton, and educational administration, there still is no general conceptual framework for systematizing and interrelating our knowledge within and among these areas. It is still impossible to speak of administration in terms that would be acceptable to, or for that matter even readily understandable by, students and practitioners in the several special fields. This failure to conceptualize administration on a general theoretical level has been a major obstacle to the development of administration as a rigorous discipline, and the elaboration of theory is accordingly receiving increased attention both in "research" and "applied" administrative settings. The purpose of the present paper is twofold: (a) to describe a socio-psychological theory of social behavior having broad application to the area of administration and (b) to illustrate the application of the theory to major issues in administration. The four major issues considered here are: the problem of institutional and individual conflict; the problem of staff effectiveness, efficiency, and satis-